The Fighter
I went into this both wanting... and not wanting.. to see the movie. I wanted to see it because a lot of people thought it was excellent. People whose opinions I usually agree with. And, of course, it's a best picture Oscar nominee, and I try to see all the nominees before the ceremony. So I kind of HAD to see it. But, I also was reluctant because here we have another boxing movie... I mean, another boxing/underdog movie. We've been here before, right? Was this going to be a cheap knockoff of Rocky? Or perhaps a number of other sports-themed movies where the main character was too small/too old/too finished to triumph in his one last shot? Or was it going to succumb to a number of other cliches... perhaps it would be a cliche smorgasbord: a little of this, a little of that and in the end? A trite, overwrought, sloppy mess of a movie. And yet, so many people thought it was at least pretty good...
So, cliches... well here's a couple to choose from. Two set ups: today is my birthday- that's set up number one. Also, I have been meaning to see The Fighter for forever. Every time I made a plan to see it, something would come up and, well, The Fighter would have to wait... or rather, I would have to wait to see The Fighter. So, yes, cliches... here we go, have your pick: Happy birthday to me! Or. Good things come to those who wait! Your choice.
The Fighter was fantastic. I know we've seen this story before. It did rumble across a number of sports-movie cliches. But- it did so in a manner that didn't seem cliche. And I think David O. Russell managed to get this done by focusing less on the story than the characters bringing the story to life. This isn't just about a guy trying to make it in the boxing world despite the fact that he isn't getting any younger... very quickly. This is about the people not the journey. People facing their dreams and their demons. People triumphing over everyday life. This is good stuff. And complicated. It's more than he came, he saw, he struggled, he either conquered/fell short but oh so valiantly. We get a sense of who these people are swirling around Micky Ward. And we get a sense of who Micky Ward himself is. It's more a study of what makes these cats tick. And it's damn intriguing to get a window into that. And- so much as this is a story/study of characters- this is less the Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg who really was good, but honestly the weakest link in the cast) show than the Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) show. Or perhaps, it was the Micky and Dicky show. One can't be mentioned without the other- and that's really one of the main sticking points in the story.
The only problem is, in the movie (much as in Micky real life... at least the coming of age part) Dicky steals the movie. And this is, of course, due to Christian Bale. Bale may well be among the biggest dicks out there. I really don't care. He is an absolute master at the art of acting. No one may be better, and Bale is at his best here. He plays Dicky as a never-ending ball of twitchy energy. A blue collar, silver-tongued smoothie. You can't help but like the guy even though he's a disaster of a human being... that is, until he crosses the line one time too many. Bale, as he so often does with his characters, vanishes and Dicky Eklund is all that is left on screen. It's utterly mesmerizing. And it's his energy, his spirit, and his part of the tale that really drive the movie. In my mind, the movie avoids the cliche graveyard, largely because of Bale... well Bale and Melissa Leo as Dicky and Micky's (half-brothers) mother, Alice. She's the only other one in a cast giving great performances who comes anywhere close to Bale's work. And it's a disgusting part to play. An overbearing mother living in the faded glory of her dried up son's former life... and trying so hard to rekindle the old spark through her younger son. But not for his benefit. For hers... and Dicky's? And Leo doesn't leave much to doubt: this woman is horrible. Exceptional work. Leo and Bale shine so bright, it makes the rest of the cast look a little dimmer.
Don't get me wrong, the rest of the cast turns in excellent performances as well. I can't imagine anyone being able to pull off Micky Ward as well as Wahlberg. And Amy Adams gives shows a welcome gritty side as Ward's tough as shit girlfriend Charlene. Jack McGee as Micky's dad and Mickey O'Keefe (who plays himself, one of Micky Ward's trainers) only add to the quality of the movie. And of course the cadre of unknowns (including Conan O'Brien's sister, Kate) playing Dicky and Micky's sisters are a hoot. But really this movie rides to a great degree on the performances of Leo and Bale... oh, and a pretty good story told in a great way (excellent work by Russell- boxing on the big screen has never looked better).
So again it's back to that story. To just describe it in the easiest way would indeed make it sound so much like your typical underdog story... so yeah again... cliche. So hardly worth seeing. But there again is more complexity to the story. Micky has a lot to triumph over, but there's a lot as well that HE doesn't need to triumph over. I think that's one of the things I liked most about the movie. You can clearly see that his half-brother and mother are sinking him. In a traditional sense he would need to cut them out to become who he wants to be...who the story needs him to be. But he doesn't WANT to cut them out, and in many ways he needs them- despite their flaws. But he needs them to be open about themselves and who they are. So the story boils down to a match of wills- Micky trying to create a new future (they can all- I suppose revel in as well) versus Alice and Dicky holding on so tight to heroic glory of the past that they can't really see how inglorious it truly was.. and is.
So then of course, the story does build to it's inevitable end: Micky has a shot at greatness. At this point it seems as though the movie can go one of tow directions (and I realize I'm going to do it no favors describing it as such) towards Rocky-ville or towards Major League-shire. Is getting the shot and go toe to toe against the champ his victory. Or does he, against all odds, win it all. See, one of the things that I think worked to my benefit in seeing the movie is that I didn't know the real story of Micky Ward (yes, this is based on a true story- and, in fact, you get to see the real Micky and Dicky in the end credits). That helped really bring out the drama in the outstanding fights sequences. So I'm not going to say more than this: the movie ends up somewhere in between the two. And that's a damn good place for it to be.
Grade: A+
(hmmm... this is my third A+.. maybe I'm being too lenient. Screw it... I loved this movie).
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Movie List 2011- 5.) True Grit
True Grit (2010)
I guess I should start out by saying that I've never seen the original. I think I might have seen bits and pieces in passing, and I've seen quite a bit of the original's sequel Rooster Cogburn... though I don't remember too many details. What I do remember is that Rooster Cogburn seemed a but farcical and overall pretty lighthearted. I can only imagine the original True Grit was done in the same manner. And if that is the case, then I doubt it is anywhere near as good as the Coen Brothers' version. The Coens' True Grit was a movie that had... well grit. And that grit was used to great effect. The Coens claim that they didn't make a remake of the movie, but instead consulted the source material and dreamed up their own version of the book. If that's true, then the book must be one rough and tumble novel. But... and this is important... great fun as well. I'm really tempted here to keep going back to the well of comparison between the 2010 and 1969 version. I probably should get a grip on that because a.) that's not really a great indicator of whether a movie is any good... sure, it may be better than its predecessor but is it good in it's own right? and b.) again, I've never seen it.
So taking this one on it's own what do we have? A great western action flick, that's for sure. Loved the action, loved the tone of the movie, and loved the performances. But I think the thing that was most mesmerizing was the dialogue... the words pouring out of the actors and actresses. At first there was a bit of a disconnect... the words themselves seemed so... well different... in that I mean the manner of the speaking, the way the words were strung together. It seemed... forced... and yet...at the same time it all seemed natural in how it was presented. It wasn't like the actors were forcing these strange sentences out... but that they naturally just talked... differently (yes, I realize folks talked differently "back then" but this presentation just seemed...unique... somehow... and not in a bad way). And once I got into the swing and rhythm of it, the dialogue became entrancing. Kinda began to wish I could pull that all off. The real master of the Coens' script was actually 13-year old Hailee Steinfeld. She ends up giving a performance well beyond her years. Great stuff and well deserving of the Oscar nomination (but supporting???). I don't know where they found her, but kudos there. But, of course, she's not alone in offering some great acting. Jeff Bridges was fantastic chewing up and spitting out the Coen's script. Awesome. It was like he was made for the role. Really. Hard to imagine anyone else pulling THIS version of the Rooster off so naturally. Another deserving Oscar nod. And watching the increasingly grizzled vet trade stellar line after stellar line with the new kid on the block was fantastic to sit back and enjoy. Those scenes, where Rooster and Mattie engage in verbal sparring matches were the best part of the movie. Well that and Rooster subtly shredding his partner/rival LaBoeuf (Matt Damon, pretty darn good here as well). Again, awesome stuff.
Oh I guess I should explain more about the story. And an intriguing story it was... as I imagine it was in the first effort... it's pretty straightforward: Mattie hires Rooster to track down the cretin that killed her father and bring said cretin to justice... in Arkansas... meanwhile LaBoeuf has been on the same cretin's trail for crimes committed in Texas and if he can bring the bastard back to Texas, he stands to cash in bigtime. He and Rooster- falling into and out of partnership- chase the guy into Indian Country where some damn fun action ensues. Bam. Simple yet good storying. See, the thing is, I like Westerns. I especially like a certain kind of Western. I like the gritty kind. Where swagger is more a matter of life and death than of looking good. And I certainly don't mind when the grittiness is accompanied by a degree of fun. Think Tombstone. Or Open Range... or to a lesser degree, Young Guns (guilty pleasure)... heck even Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid- heavy on the fun- had a pretty decent overtone of gravitas. And if there is going to be one or the other, why not go for the grit and edge... like Unforgiven- which is a damn good movie itself. I'm less interested in the Westerns where the good guys are something like gun toting dandies and the bad guys are tall dark and Italian/Mexican. Thankfully, the Coens know how to wed edge and entertainment and come out with a real winner here.
Now, I realize, there may be some folks out here who think I've shit on the Duke's grave. Especially when I say it seems like Jeff Bridges was made for the role of Rooster. Again, I can only draw on my experience of seeing PART of Rooster Cogburn. And it just seemed like the whole time it was John Wayne prancing about in a long coat, cowboy hat and eye patch... but it was definitely John Wayne. I'm not saying that the movie itself was shit or that John Wayne wasn't fun and entertaining. I'm certainly not saying that about True Grit (1969). What I'm saying is that John Wayne seemed- in most of his roles- to be John Wayne. Again nothing intrinsically wrong with that. But Jeff Bridges seemed to really inhabit the role of Rooster Cogburn. I do suppose an argument can be made that this grizzled, washed-up wise-ass is who Jeff Bridges is these days (judging by the wide variety of similar roles he has taken lately) and so really this is just a matter of Jeff Bridges being the Jeff Bridges of the last 15 years or so. I suppose it is true that Rooster could have been the great-great-great grandfather of Bad Blake from Crazy Heart...and there was also an element of Dude-ness to the character. I would argue... and it is a subtle point... that perhaps Bridges keeps being cast in these roles because he is so damn good at them. I don't think Bridges is a gruff alcoholic in real-life. I believe he is a much sunnier person. But even that is moot. The fact is, when I watch Jeff Bridges in these roles, he disappears into the character. In the roles that I've seen John Wayne play (admittedly a small sample size... which- again- does not include the first go around of True Grit), it more seems like the character bends towards John Wayne. (Much the same way that Tom Hanks' characters often do the same... or Vince Vaughn). It's almost like Rooster Cogburn is doing a John Wayne impression. I don't know. Again, I want to stress that there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. In this case- at least in the way the Coens drew it up- Jeff Bridges was the right guy, giving the right performance in a great- if not "right" gritty/fun version of True Grit.
Grade: A
I guess I should start out by saying that I've never seen the original. I think I might have seen bits and pieces in passing, and I've seen quite a bit of the original's sequel Rooster Cogburn... though I don't remember too many details. What I do remember is that Rooster Cogburn seemed a but farcical and overall pretty lighthearted. I can only imagine the original True Grit was done in the same manner. And if that is the case, then I doubt it is anywhere near as good as the Coen Brothers' version. The Coens' True Grit was a movie that had... well grit. And that grit was used to great effect. The Coens claim that they didn't make a remake of the movie, but instead consulted the source material and dreamed up their own version of the book. If that's true, then the book must be one rough and tumble novel. But... and this is important... great fun as well. I'm really tempted here to keep going back to the well of comparison between the 2010 and 1969 version. I probably should get a grip on that because a.) that's not really a great indicator of whether a movie is any good... sure, it may be better than its predecessor but is it good in it's own right? and b.) again, I've never seen it.
So taking this one on it's own what do we have? A great western action flick, that's for sure. Loved the action, loved the tone of the movie, and loved the performances. But I think the thing that was most mesmerizing was the dialogue... the words pouring out of the actors and actresses. At first there was a bit of a disconnect... the words themselves seemed so... well different... in that I mean the manner of the speaking, the way the words were strung together. It seemed... forced... and yet...at the same time it all seemed natural in how it was presented. It wasn't like the actors were forcing these strange sentences out... but that they naturally just talked... differently (yes, I realize folks talked differently "back then" but this presentation just seemed...unique... somehow... and not in a bad way). And once I got into the swing and rhythm of it, the dialogue became entrancing. Kinda began to wish I could pull that all off. The real master of the Coens' script was actually 13-year old Hailee Steinfeld. She ends up giving a performance well beyond her years. Great stuff and well deserving of the Oscar nomination (but supporting???). I don't know where they found her, but kudos there. But, of course, she's not alone in offering some great acting. Jeff Bridges was fantastic chewing up and spitting out the Coen's script. Awesome. It was like he was made for the role. Really. Hard to imagine anyone else pulling THIS version of the Rooster off so naturally. Another deserving Oscar nod. And watching the increasingly grizzled vet trade stellar line after stellar line with the new kid on the block was fantastic to sit back and enjoy. Those scenes, where Rooster and Mattie engage in verbal sparring matches were the best part of the movie. Well that and Rooster subtly shredding his partner/rival LaBoeuf (Matt Damon, pretty darn good here as well). Again, awesome stuff.
Oh I guess I should explain more about the story. And an intriguing story it was... as I imagine it was in the first effort... it's pretty straightforward: Mattie hires Rooster to track down the cretin that killed her father and bring said cretin to justice... in Arkansas... meanwhile LaBoeuf has been on the same cretin's trail for crimes committed in Texas and if he can bring the bastard back to Texas, he stands to cash in bigtime. He and Rooster- falling into and out of partnership- chase the guy into Indian Country where some damn fun action ensues. Bam. Simple yet good storying. See, the thing is, I like Westerns. I especially like a certain kind of Western. I like the gritty kind. Where swagger is more a matter of life and death than of looking good. And I certainly don't mind when the grittiness is accompanied by a degree of fun. Think Tombstone. Or Open Range... or to a lesser degree, Young Guns (guilty pleasure)... heck even Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid- heavy on the fun- had a pretty decent overtone of gravitas. And if there is going to be one or the other, why not go for the grit and edge... like Unforgiven- which is a damn good movie itself. I'm less interested in the Westerns where the good guys are something like gun toting dandies and the bad guys are tall dark and Italian/Mexican. Thankfully, the Coens know how to wed edge and entertainment and come out with a real winner here.
Now, I realize, there may be some folks out here who think I've shit on the Duke's grave. Especially when I say it seems like Jeff Bridges was made for the role of Rooster. Again, I can only draw on my experience of seeing PART of Rooster Cogburn. And it just seemed like the whole time it was John Wayne prancing about in a long coat, cowboy hat and eye patch... but it was definitely John Wayne. I'm not saying that the movie itself was shit or that John Wayne wasn't fun and entertaining. I'm certainly not saying that about True Grit (1969). What I'm saying is that John Wayne seemed- in most of his roles- to be John Wayne. Again nothing intrinsically wrong with that. But Jeff Bridges seemed to really inhabit the role of Rooster Cogburn. I do suppose an argument can be made that this grizzled, washed-up wise-ass is who Jeff Bridges is these days (judging by the wide variety of similar roles he has taken lately) and so really this is just a matter of Jeff Bridges being the Jeff Bridges of the last 15 years or so. I suppose it is true that Rooster could have been the great-great-great grandfather of Bad Blake from Crazy Heart...and there was also an element of Dude-ness to the character. I would argue... and it is a subtle point... that perhaps Bridges keeps being cast in these roles because he is so damn good at them. I don't think Bridges is a gruff alcoholic in real-life. I believe he is a much sunnier person. But even that is moot. The fact is, when I watch Jeff Bridges in these roles, he disappears into the character. In the roles that I've seen John Wayne play (admittedly a small sample size... which- again- does not include the first go around of True Grit), it more seems like the character bends towards John Wayne. (Much the same way that Tom Hanks' characters often do the same... or Vince Vaughn). It's almost like Rooster Cogburn is doing a John Wayne impression. I don't know. Again, I want to stress that there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. In this case- at least in the way the Coens drew it up- Jeff Bridges was the right guy, giving the right performance in a great- if not "right" gritty/fun version of True Grit.
Grade: A
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Movie List 2011- 4.) Blue Valentine
Blue Valentine
This is a hard one to like. It's hard to enjoy watching two people who evidently cared.. or care.. so much for each other fall apart. That said, it was well done. For the most part, Derek Cianfrance absolutely nails it. He gives everyone a window into the roller coaster ride that a relationship can be. The ultimate for better or worse. I'm not saying that everyone has had a relationship like the one forged by Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams), but I'm pretty sure that we've all had our moments or at the very least we know people who despite being married or dating for years and year, they just can't seem to stand each other right now. I see it all the time out here in Long Island. Not sure what to make of it, but I do see it. In the grocery store, restaurants, or heck even at the movies. Conversations aren't so much spoken as yelled or snapped back and forth. And you can't help wondering how did these two ever end up together. They hate each other. Well maybe not, but they seem to, and that's not exactly great. What I think that Cianfrance and company absolutely nail is showing that there is a back story. And while maybe the reasons don't make sense, and maybe it's just as simple as folks growing away from each other just simply that feelings fade, whatever it is there are reasons for why folks come together. And usually- but not always- those reasons are beautiful... no matter how bitter the ending. So in a sense, this is another movie that does a great job of emphasizing the beauty of the moment- done in flashback... you start with the increasingly crumbling couple in the final throes of falling apart and then through flashback you generally get the answer to the question- what did she ever see in him? Or didn't he know what he was getting into with her? And through the flashbacks you see how they came together. And you see that the potential is there to fall apart- it was inevitable, but-especially since you simultaneously are seeing how things end up in the future- you can see where the turmoil was likely. It is a great visual recounting of a relationship that is both complex... and also at the same time.. simple. And I think the way that Cianfrance details Dean and Cindy's coming together and falling for each other is where the director displays his real masterstroke. He doesn't force the reasons they fall for each other on you. These things are difficult to put into words... and Cianfrace uses his words sparingly here. What you see are the subtle clues that two souls are coming together-for better or for worse. Cianfrance doesn't explain it- he doesn't have to- he lays it out in the fabric of the film and you just coming away understanding it. They genuinely care for each other in the flashbacks. And despite crumbling away through time they still did care about each other. And THAT is how they have ended up so far gone that they really seem to hate each other. Excellent work there.
Other than being incredibly bittersweet, there wasn't a lot to dislike about the film. At first, I struggled with the fact that there was only then (Cindy and Dean first falling for each other... growing closer...getting married) and now (fights, arguments, and exasperation). It kind of bugged me that we never get a window into what happened in between. The more I think about it, the more I realize that it would be unnecessary and completely out of the character of the movie. Cianfrance rarely comes out and explains everything in great detail. You see it and are able to piece it together for yourself. And the juxtaposition of then and how they were when they fell for each other and now and how far gone from the then point they are kind of actually tells you everything you need to know about the in-between. It was a great feat of storytelling to be able to leave so much out but still come away with a complete tale.
A couple other things you could probably figure out just by watching the trailer. Both leads- Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling- absolutely nail their roles. They are pitch perfect in both aspects of the relationship. The chemistry and antichemistry is amazing and both deserve the attention they are getting (which still isn't as much as they deserve). Just the way Cianfrance crafts the story demands actors who can say more with looks and subtlety than with words. And these two were masters here.
The other thing is that this movie has one of the most charming scenes I've seen in a long time... and it's the one from the trailer. Ryan Gosling's Dean gives an impromptu performance of You Always Hurt the One You Love accompanying himself on the ukulele (I believe) while Michelle Williams's Cindy does a slightly awkward tap dance on some random main street somewhere. And right there you can see that at least in this one beautiful moment, these two are so right for each other. You just get it. It was awesome. Just like the movie on the whole... even if it was hard to really like in the end.
Grade: A+
This is a hard one to like. It's hard to enjoy watching two people who evidently cared.. or care.. so much for each other fall apart. That said, it was well done. For the most part, Derek Cianfrance absolutely nails it. He gives everyone a window into the roller coaster ride that a relationship can be. The ultimate for better or worse. I'm not saying that everyone has had a relationship like the one forged by Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams), but I'm pretty sure that we've all had our moments or at the very least we know people who despite being married or dating for years and year, they just can't seem to stand each other right now. I see it all the time out here in Long Island. Not sure what to make of it, but I do see it. In the grocery store, restaurants, or heck even at the movies. Conversations aren't so much spoken as yelled or snapped back and forth. And you can't help wondering how did these two ever end up together. They hate each other. Well maybe not, but they seem to, and that's not exactly great. What I think that Cianfrance and company absolutely nail is showing that there is a back story. And while maybe the reasons don't make sense, and maybe it's just as simple as folks growing away from each other just simply that feelings fade, whatever it is there are reasons for why folks come together. And usually- but not always- those reasons are beautiful... no matter how bitter the ending. So in a sense, this is another movie that does a great job of emphasizing the beauty of the moment- done in flashback... you start with the increasingly crumbling couple in the final throes of falling apart and then through flashback you generally get the answer to the question- what did she ever see in him? Or didn't he know what he was getting into with her? And through the flashbacks you see how they came together. And you see that the potential is there to fall apart- it was inevitable, but-especially since you simultaneously are seeing how things end up in the future- you can see where the turmoil was likely. It is a great visual recounting of a relationship that is both complex... and also at the same time.. simple. And I think the way that Cianfrance details Dean and Cindy's coming together and falling for each other is where the director displays his real masterstroke. He doesn't force the reasons they fall for each other on you. These things are difficult to put into words... and Cianfrace uses his words sparingly here. What you see are the subtle clues that two souls are coming together-for better or for worse. Cianfrance doesn't explain it- he doesn't have to- he lays it out in the fabric of the film and you just coming away understanding it. They genuinely care for each other in the flashbacks. And despite crumbling away through time they still did care about each other. And THAT is how they have ended up so far gone that they really seem to hate each other. Excellent work there.
Other than being incredibly bittersweet, there wasn't a lot to dislike about the film. At first, I struggled with the fact that there was only then (Cindy and Dean first falling for each other... growing closer...getting married) and now (fights, arguments, and exasperation). It kind of bugged me that we never get a window into what happened in between. The more I think about it, the more I realize that it would be unnecessary and completely out of the character of the movie. Cianfrance rarely comes out and explains everything in great detail. You see it and are able to piece it together for yourself. And the juxtaposition of then and how they were when they fell for each other and now and how far gone from the then point they are kind of actually tells you everything you need to know about the in-between. It was a great feat of storytelling to be able to leave so much out but still come away with a complete tale.
A couple other things you could probably figure out just by watching the trailer. Both leads- Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling- absolutely nail their roles. They are pitch perfect in both aspects of the relationship. The chemistry and antichemistry is amazing and both deserve the attention they are getting (which still isn't as much as they deserve). Just the way Cianfrance crafts the story demands actors who can say more with looks and subtlety than with words. And these two were masters here.
The other thing is that this movie has one of the most charming scenes I've seen in a long time... and it's the one from the trailer. Ryan Gosling's Dean gives an impromptu performance of You Always Hurt the One You Love accompanying himself on the ukulele (I believe) while Michelle Williams's Cindy does a slightly awkward tap dance on some random main street somewhere. And right there you can see that at least in this one beautiful moment, these two are so right for each other. You just get it. It was awesome. Just like the movie on the whole... even if it was hard to really like in the end.
Grade: A+
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Movie List 2011- 3.) Black Swan
Black Swan
Not 100% sure what to make of this one. My gut is telling me that I just didn't like it all that much. And yet... the damn thing is sticking with me. Generally, movies that follow me around tend to grow on me, but I just can't see that happening with this one. Also, I can usually figure out a letter grade for a film by the time I make it back to my car. This is, after all, basically my first impression/gut feeling about the movie. So what to make of THIS movie???
To start, it was damn intense. Gripping. Almost to the point of being uncomfortable/overwhelming. It was pretty much exactly like watching a car crash develop in slow motion. A bad one too. You know it ain't gonna be good but you just can't force yourself to look away. Just how bad is it going to be? In this, pretty bad. Over the top bad. I guess you can boil the movie down to this: it's basically a window into the mind of a young lady going crazy due to unimaginable pressure- brought on both from within and through outside influences. As descents into madness go, this was pretty vivid. You definitely got the idea that Natalie Portman's Nina was waaaay past gone by the end. But still... as it was SO clear that she was SO crazy... it kind of felt like auteur director Darren Aronofsky took the easy way out. I always seem to favor the less-is-more approach to film-making. Why come out and say something... no, wait, why hammer a point clear into an audience's head/force it down their throat through their eye/ear holes when hinting, cajoling, gradually leading the audience to your desired effect will do just as well... if not far and away better. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't as if Nina started out completely insane and this was just a passing window into her madness. You get lead to the end that she's sold so much of herself to get so far... one hammer blow to the head at a time. So I guess what it amounts to is a voyeur's view of crazy. Hmmm, not generally for me. And yet... it was so damn intense. I was glued to the screen. I can't say it was boring, that's for sure. But can I say it was good?
Well, I can say that the performances were exceptional. And that helps. Natalie Portman definitely deserves all the accolades being tossed her way. She seemed almost scarily invested in the part. Mila Kunis played her role as Nina's rival/frenemy/epitome of insanity really well- she was definitely an intriguing mystery- transfixing. Winona Ryder was similarly fantastic. But, to me, the one who stole every scene she was in was Barbara Hershey as Nina's smothering Mother. Hershey was able to convey so much with just the look in her eyes. It was incredible to see. Mother madness at her finest.
None of the actors disappointed here, which, as I said, makes it hard to dislike the movie. I do have to hand it to Aronofsky; he was trying to create a visionary film here. And to some degree he does succeed. It just keeps bugging me how over the top the movie was. So over-the-top. If the performances weren't so riveting, the over-the-topness of it probably would have been distracting. But as it was, and as I've said, it was hard to look away.
So, in the end, what to make of Black Swan? In the "pro" column are incredible performances, a rare intensity, and an interesting story/plot. Going against it? A lack of subtlety and the fact that the way the movie played out... well for lack of a better way of putting it, it was just too much. And that whole voyeur feeling just felt wrong. So what does it amount to? I guess... in the end... I'd say it was a pretty good movie- certainly will stick with me- but not fantastic.
Grade: B
Not 100% sure what to make of this one. My gut is telling me that I just didn't like it all that much. And yet... the damn thing is sticking with me. Generally, movies that follow me around tend to grow on me, but I just can't see that happening with this one. Also, I can usually figure out a letter grade for a film by the time I make it back to my car. This is, after all, basically my first impression/gut feeling about the movie. So what to make of THIS movie???
To start, it was damn intense. Gripping. Almost to the point of being uncomfortable/overwhelming. It was pretty much exactly like watching a car crash develop in slow motion. A bad one too. You know it ain't gonna be good but you just can't force yourself to look away. Just how bad is it going to be? In this, pretty bad. Over the top bad. I guess you can boil the movie down to this: it's basically a window into the mind of a young lady going crazy due to unimaginable pressure- brought on both from within and through outside influences. As descents into madness go, this was pretty vivid. You definitely got the idea that Natalie Portman's Nina was waaaay past gone by the end. But still... as it was SO clear that she was SO crazy... it kind of felt like auteur director Darren Aronofsky took the easy way out. I always seem to favor the less-is-more approach to film-making. Why come out and say something... no, wait, why hammer a point clear into an audience's head/force it down their throat through their eye/ear holes when hinting, cajoling, gradually leading the audience to your desired effect will do just as well... if not far and away better. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't as if Nina started out completely insane and this was just a passing window into her madness. You get lead to the end that she's sold so much of herself to get so far... one hammer blow to the head at a time. So I guess what it amounts to is a voyeur's view of crazy. Hmmm, not generally for me. And yet... it was so damn intense. I was glued to the screen. I can't say it was boring, that's for sure. But can I say it was good?
Well, I can say that the performances were exceptional. And that helps. Natalie Portman definitely deserves all the accolades being tossed her way. She seemed almost scarily invested in the part. Mila Kunis played her role as Nina's rival/frenemy/epitome of insanity really well- she was definitely an intriguing mystery- transfixing. Winona Ryder was similarly fantastic. But, to me, the one who stole every scene she was in was Barbara Hershey as Nina's smothering Mother. Hershey was able to convey so much with just the look in her eyes. It was incredible to see. Mother madness at her finest.
None of the actors disappointed here, which, as I said, makes it hard to dislike the movie. I do have to hand it to Aronofsky; he was trying to create a visionary film here. And to some degree he does succeed. It just keeps bugging me how over the top the movie was. So over-the-top. If the performances weren't so riveting, the over-the-topness of it probably would have been distracting. But as it was, and as I've said, it was hard to look away.
So, in the end, what to make of Black Swan? In the "pro" column are incredible performances, a rare intensity, and an interesting story/plot. Going against it? A lack of subtlety and the fact that the way the movie played out... well for lack of a better way of putting it, it was just too much. And that whole voyeur feeling just felt wrong. So what does it amount to? I guess... in the end... I'd say it was a pretty good movie- certainly will stick with me- but not fantastic.
Grade: B
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Notes and Opinions 2011: 2.) 2010 Top 10
2010 Top Ten... and Botton 5
So as many of you know all too well, 2011 isn't the first time I've had the Magic Pass as I call. I've had it in 2007, 2009, and 2010 as well. And each year, I try to keep track of the movies I saw (I've actually been doing this for ALL movies I see for the first time- both in the theater and out- since 2002, I believe... it's part of a 1000+, constantly updated movie list I keep... in fact, in the time that I've obsessively tracked my movie viewing, I've seen 452 movies off the list... yeah, I'm weird... but I like it that way.) So, since '09 I've kept track of the movies I've seen on the pass on Facebook and included my reviews (via fb notes... which has now morphed into this blog). Each of the past two years, I've also promised a top ten list. To whom I'm promising this list, I don't know... I never got the sense that many people cared about my musings, but what the hell, why not. So, while 2009 may be a lost cause at this point, 2010 is just far enough in the rear view mirror to make this an acceptable time to put out my top 10 of 2010 movie list. Oh and bottom five. I saw a few movies that sucked... well, at least in my opinion. A quick note on the list that follows: this is a list of the top 10 movies I saw on my 2010 movie pass... a saw a lot of the better winter releases after the turn of 2009 to 2010. So even though these movies were released in 2009, I saw them (in the theater) in 2010 and that's what this list is all about. Also, my brief musing on each will be based on what I remember. I used my original letter grades to parse out which of the 58 made each list, but I wanted to see if I could remember which were the most memorable in order to rank them. So yeah, I haven't reviewed my initial "reviews" So anyway, away we go:
10.) The Lovely Bones
The thing I remember most about this one was some amazing settings and beautiful shots. The acting was pretty damn good too. I thought it was a shame it was neglected at awards time- outside of Stanley Tucci's nomination for best supporting actor. To me, it was a really good movie.
9.) The Town
Hoping this one doesn't get ignored due to some prejudice against a light-weight actor turned director. (Yeah Ben Affleck has had some meaty roles, but really 9/10 of his recent-ish stuff is crap). Good crime/action flick.
8.) Kick-Ass
A whole hell of a lot of fun. Most entertained I had been at the movies in some time. In fact, it had so much going for it that not even the fact that Nicholas Cage was in it could keep it down. Great story, good fun, and an academy awards-worthy performance-in my mind- by Chloe Grace Moretz as Hit Girl. Good times.
7.) Up in the Air
What I remember most about this one was a vibe/tone I fell in love with. That and George Clooney knocking it out of the park. I wasn't so hot on the ending of the movie... well I should say the near-the-ending of the movie. But, in any event, it was a good flick.
6.) The Last Station
Another criminally ignored (by the Academy) movie. Much like this year's The King's Speech. This had everything I look for in a good movie, especially a good historical drama.
5.) An Education
Carey Mulligan was exceptional. She should have won the Oscar for Best Actress. Hands down. Such a breath of fresh air. And everything else about the movie worked too. A must see.
4.) Shutter Island
I love getting mind-f-ed at the movies. Well at least when it's done in such a way that I know it's happening at the end. Good stuff. Another Scorsese winner.
3.) Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
This was so. much. fun. Quirky cool. Great story and great performances. It was like the rebirth of Michael Cera. In a good way too. A truly unique movie (done in a way where it didn't seem too be blatantly showy about it's uniqueness.) Loved it.
2.) The Social Network
The star was the dialogue/script. Awesome. Just plain awesome. Great pacing too- an aspect of movies which is often under-appreciated until something goes terribly wrong. It was also a good "of-our-time" movie. Oh and Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Timberlake? Flat out awesome.
1.) Inception
Chris Nolan is a master movie-maker. This was such a great movie. Great story. Great Acting. Great effects. It was also a thinker. There was some nice mind- f'ing going on too. And an awesome ending. So much the viewer is left to wonder about. And yet, I wasn't the slightest but frustrated by that either. Sometimes, particularly when it is done well, there is nothing wrong with leaving the theater with more questions than answers. This one stuck with me for a good long while. And honestly, that's hard for movies to do. Big ups, Inception, big ups.
And for every 10 awesome movies, there were duds. I actually generally still like most movies I go see (case in point- I gave out 20 grades of A-,A, or A+ last year whereas I only gave out 9 C- or lower grades) so I decided only to do a bottom five. The fact that I really generally at least see some redeeming value in movies- I really do WANT to like them- means that these five really rubbed me the wrong way. If the top 10 were recommendations, you can consider these as warnings (but again, I would recommend that if you were interested in seeing them, see them anyway, don't take my word for it... all I'd say is that if it came down to one of these and one not on this list... and you generally find yourself agreeing with my tastes... well perhaps this should slide down the ol' priority list.
The Bottom 5
5a.) Brooklyn's Finest
Ok, to cheat a little, I have a tie at 5. I'll explain more about the tie in 5b. As for Brooklyn's Finest... an overblown cookie-cutter of a cop action/drama. Avoided a worse rating due to pretty good-ish performances from Wesley Snipes and Don Cheadle.
5b.) The A-Team
A LOT more people that I know liked this A LOT more than I did. And in fact, maybe my D grade was harsher than it deserved. I do remember going into it hoping for as fun a ride as other action flicks... like Kick-Ass and being sorely, sorely disappointed. The plot was kind of boring to me and the special effects were kind of atrocious. And I also remember feeling like it was some kind of action-movie parody. I'll fully admit that I don't remember watching much of the series. Don't remember it at all really. And if this is an homage to the series, well, it had no where to go with me than clear over my head. That said, disliking this as much as I did, maybe I really wouldn't have found much about the TV show to be excited about either. Let's sum it up this way- it just wasn't for me.
4.) The Wolfman
Hokey. Just plain hokey. Another supposed homage that went well over my head. Yeah hokey was a good way of summing it up... oh and dreary/boring. Despite Emily Blunt and Benicio Del Toro (two of my favorites). And it certainly was a sad movie for Anthony Hopkins- another former favorite whose star is fading in my mind... say it ain't so Sir Anthony...
3.) The American
As I was saying with The Social Network, pacing is usually not something someone notices unless something goes terribly wrong... it went wrong here. So. damn. slow. A bad attempt at making an artsy movie. It, in fact, turned into a slog. The only thing that elevated it was some beautiful scenery shots... no not George Clooney who usually has enough charm to save virtually any movie in my mind. Nope. Not this time. Although... I guess I still wish I could swap lives with George Clooney.
2.) Grown Ups
Yeah, Adam Sandler may never grow up. The jokes were either bad or strained. The buddy-vibe of the main actors certainly felt...well.. forced. Makes me wonder if any of the folks involved with the movie has a genuinely funny flick left in them.. My guess... probably not.
1.) MacGruber
Worst movie- in my mind- of any of the years I've had the pass. I'm not sure who thought this was going to be funny or good. Not me. I actually didn't want to see it. Went to see it on the off chance that it might be funny-ish. I was wrong. It actually exceeded my expectations...of how shitty it would be. Two things amaze me about it though. 1.) I didn't walk out. (I mean I rarely have the desire to walk out of a movie... especially one I got to see for free... my time isn't that valuable really- but I do wish I had that 90 minutes back) and 2.) Despite staying, I didn't rip my beard out. Hmmm, well done, Kiernan!
Ok, for a real quick bonus, the best and worst that I saw out of theaters during 2010. Not an extensive list because I only saw 4 movies (for the first time) on the small screen. But just for kicks here are the top and bottom of the list.
Top: Forgetting Sarah Marshal
Loved the movie. Just the right amount of quirk and the right helping of typical romantic comedy. Loved both Jason Segel and Mila Kunis in this. Awesome.
Bottom: A Serious Man
Maybe I just didn't get it. But at least now I know for certain that the Coen brothers don't shit gold. I just couldn't believe that a movie this boring could be a Coens flick and that it managed to get Oscar buzz to boot. No, ok, I fully admit that I'm not well-versed on Jewish American home culture so maybe it just was outside of my grasp. But I was disappointed. It wasn't even necessarily a bad movie per se. Just the worst I saw outside the theater in 2010. I think I gave it something like a C grade. Which is about right. But for the Coens? I've come to expect an A. Damn it.
So yeah... that's that. Hope it wasn't a waste of time. May get around to writing up a best of 2009, might not. But hopefully I'll have the goods to do a best of 2011... maybe, anyway.
So as many of you know all too well, 2011 isn't the first time I've had the Magic Pass as I call. I've had it in 2007, 2009, and 2010 as well. And each year, I try to keep track of the movies I saw (I've actually been doing this for ALL movies I see for the first time- both in the theater and out- since 2002, I believe... it's part of a 1000+, constantly updated movie list I keep... in fact, in the time that I've obsessively tracked my movie viewing, I've seen 452 movies off the list... yeah, I'm weird... but I like it that way.) So, since '09 I've kept track of the movies I've seen on the pass on Facebook and included my reviews (via fb notes... which has now morphed into this blog). Each of the past two years, I've also promised a top ten list. To whom I'm promising this list, I don't know... I never got the sense that many people cared about my musings, but what the hell, why not. So, while 2009 may be a lost cause at this point, 2010 is just far enough in the rear view mirror to make this an acceptable time to put out my top 10 of 2010 movie list. Oh and bottom five. I saw a few movies that sucked... well, at least in my opinion. A quick note on the list that follows: this is a list of the top 10 movies I saw on my 2010 movie pass... a saw a lot of the better winter releases after the turn of 2009 to 2010. So even though these movies were released in 2009, I saw them (in the theater) in 2010 and that's what this list is all about. Also, my brief musing on each will be based on what I remember. I used my original letter grades to parse out which of the 58 made each list, but I wanted to see if I could remember which were the most memorable in order to rank them. So yeah, I haven't reviewed my initial "reviews" So anyway, away we go:
10.) The Lovely Bones
The thing I remember most about this one was some amazing settings and beautiful shots. The acting was pretty damn good too. I thought it was a shame it was neglected at awards time- outside of Stanley Tucci's nomination for best supporting actor. To me, it was a really good movie.
9.) The Town
Hoping this one doesn't get ignored due to some prejudice against a light-weight actor turned director. (Yeah Ben Affleck has had some meaty roles, but really 9/10 of his recent-ish stuff is crap). Good crime/action flick.
8.) Kick-Ass
A whole hell of a lot of fun. Most entertained I had been at the movies in some time. In fact, it had so much going for it that not even the fact that Nicholas Cage was in it could keep it down. Great story, good fun, and an academy awards-worthy performance-in my mind- by Chloe Grace Moretz as Hit Girl. Good times.
7.) Up in the Air
What I remember most about this one was a vibe/tone I fell in love with. That and George Clooney knocking it out of the park. I wasn't so hot on the ending of the movie... well I should say the near-the-ending of the movie. But, in any event, it was a good flick.
6.) The Last Station
Another criminally ignored (by the Academy) movie. Much like this year's The King's Speech. This had everything I look for in a good movie, especially a good historical drama.
5.) An Education
Carey Mulligan was exceptional. She should have won the Oscar for Best Actress. Hands down. Such a breath of fresh air. And everything else about the movie worked too. A must see.
4.) Shutter Island
I love getting mind-f-ed at the movies. Well at least when it's done in such a way that I know it's happening at the end. Good stuff. Another Scorsese winner.
3.) Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
This was so. much. fun. Quirky cool. Great story and great performances. It was like the rebirth of Michael Cera. In a good way too. A truly unique movie (done in a way where it didn't seem too be blatantly showy about it's uniqueness.) Loved it.
2.) The Social Network
The star was the dialogue/script. Awesome. Just plain awesome. Great pacing too- an aspect of movies which is often under-appreciated until something goes terribly wrong. It was also a good "of-our-time" movie. Oh and Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Timberlake? Flat out awesome.
1.) Inception
Chris Nolan is a master movie-maker. This was such a great movie. Great story. Great Acting. Great effects. It was also a thinker. There was some nice mind- f'ing going on too. And an awesome ending. So much the viewer is left to wonder about. And yet, I wasn't the slightest but frustrated by that either. Sometimes, particularly when it is done well, there is nothing wrong with leaving the theater with more questions than answers. This one stuck with me for a good long while. And honestly, that's hard for movies to do. Big ups, Inception, big ups.
And for every 10 awesome movies, there were duds. I actually generally still like most movies I go see (case in point- I gave out 20 grades of A-,A, or A+ last year whereas I only gave out 9 C- or lower grades) so I decided only to do a bottom five. The fact that I really generally at least see some redeeming value in movies- I really do WANT to like them- means that these five really rubbed me the wrong way. If the top 10 were recommendations, you can consider these as warnings (but again, I would recommend that if you were interested in seeing them, see them anyway, don't take my word for it... all I'd say is that if it came down to one of these and one not on this list... and you generally find yourself agreeing with my tastes... well perhaps this should slide down the ol' priority list.
The Bottom 5
5a.) Brooklyn's Finest
Ok, to cheat a little, I have a tie at 5. I'll explain more about the tie in 5b. As for Brooklyn's Finest... an overblown cookie-cutter of a cop action/drama. Avoided a worse rating due to pretty good-ish performances from Wesley Snipes and Don Cheadle.
5b.) The A-Team
A LOT more people that I know liked this A LOT more than I did. And in fact, maybe my D grade was harsher than it deserved. I do remember going into it hoping for as fun a ride as other action flicks... like Kick-Ass and being sorely, sorely disappointed. The plot was kind of boring to me and the special effects were kind of atrocious. And I also remember feeling like it was some kind of action-movie parody. I'll fully admit that I don't remember watching much of the series. Don't remember it at all really. And if this is an homage to the series, well, it had no where to go with me than clear over my head. That said, disliking this as much as I did, maybe I really wouldn't have found much about the TV show to be excited about either. Let's sum it up this way- it just wasn't for me.
4.) The Wolfman
Hokey. Just plain hokey. Another supposed homage that went well over my head. Yeah hokey was a good way of summing it up... oh and dreary/boring. Despite Emily Blunt and Benicio Del Toro (two of my favorites). And it certainly was a sad movie for Anthony Hopkins- another former favorite whose star is fading in my mind... say it ain't so Sir Anthony...
3.) The American
As I was saying with The Social Network, pacing is usually not something someone notices unless something goes terribly wrong... it went wrong here. So. damn. slow. A bad attempt at making an artsy movie. It, in fact, turned into a slog. The only thing that elevated it was some beautiful scenery shots... no not George Clooney who usually has enough charm to save virtually any movie in my mind. Nope. Not this time. Although... I guess I still wish I could swap lives with George Clooney.
2.) Grown Ups
Yeah, Adam Sandler may never grow up. The jokes were either bad or strained. The buddy-vibe of the main actors certainly felt...well.. forced. Makes me wonder if any of the folks involved with the movie has a genuinely funny flick left in them.. My guess... probably not.
1.) MacGruber
Worst movie- in my mind- of any of the years I've had the pass. I'm not sure who thought this was going to be funny or good. Not me. I actually didn't want to see it. Went to see it on the off chance that it might be funny-ish. I was wrong. It actually exceeded my expectations...of how shitty it would be. Two things amaze me about it though. 1.) I didn't walk out. (I mean I rarely have the desire to walk out of a movie... especially one I got to see for free... my time isn't that valuable really- but I do wish I had that 90 minutes back) and 2.) Despite staying, I didn't rip my beard out. Hmmm, well done, Kiernan!
Ok, for a real quick bonus, the best and worst that I saw out of theaters during 2010. Not an extensive list because I only saw 4 movies (for the first time) on the small screen. But just for kicks here are the top and bottom of the list.
Top: Forgetting Sarah Marshal
Loved the movie. Just the right amount of quirk and the right helping of typical romantic comedy. Loved both Jason Segel and Mila Kunis in this. Awesome.
Bottom: A Serious Man
Maybe I just didn't get it. But at least now I know for certain that the Coen brothers don't shit gold. I just couldn't believe that a movie this boring could be a Coens flick and that it managed to get Oscar buzz to boot. No, ok, I fully admit that I'm not well-versed on Jewish American home culture so maybe it just was outside of my grasp. But I was disappointed. It wasn't even necessarily a bad movie per se. Just the worst I saw outside the theater in 2010. I think I gave it something like a C grade. Which is about right. But for the Coens? I've come to expect an A. Damn it.
So yeah... that's that. Hope it wasn't a waste of time. May get around to writing up a best of 2009, might not. But hopefully I'll have the goods to do a best of 2011... maybe, anyway.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Movie List 2011: 2.) The King's Speech
The King's Speech
Cutting right to the chase, I loved this movie. Great cinema. The fear going into a movie like this is that it could very well be very stuffy. After all, a lot of British movies are and even more British movies dealing with the Royal Family are. This one seemed as though it be able to avoid that trap but you can never be sure until you actually go see it. I guess the other pitfall would be that the movie would have folded under the weight of its own self-importance and expectations. It did seem right off the bat- from the moment I first heard of it- that it would be a good movie. It had the right pedigree: Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush, and Guy Pearce all in pretty substantial roles. The story at the outset seemed like a good one- certainly a triumphant one. Director Tom Hooper and company must have laid everything out on the table and known they had the potential to make a hell of a movie. The problem with all that is that sometimes the folks making these good movies get so wrapped up in showing how great they are- adding "subtleties" and fine details and the like- that they actually sink their movies. One example: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Only problem is the movie was so wrapped up in itself that it sucked.
Luckily, The King's Speech isn't stuffy or too bloated with self-importance or showiness. It's just a plain old great movie. No whistles or bells. Just great acting, great shooting, great scripting, and a fitting score to tie it all together. Great acting may, in fact, be an understatement. Colin Firth as King George VI (or for most of the movie, the future King George VI) is Colin Firth at his best. And that's really saying something. Firth was incredible in last year's A Single Man. He was also awesome in Love Actually and Pride and Prejudice (was that the A&E version or BBC?). He was also damn good in Bridget Jones' Diary. But he really outdid himself here. Ditto Geoffrey Rush- an actor I'm finding I really like. He just seems to get better and better with each movie I see him in... though again this- as speech therapist Lionel Logue- may be his peak. And yeah not to be too repetitive, but same goes for Helena Bonham Carter as King George VI's wife, Elizabeth. In short, each of these actors give a clinic on the art of acting. You want to be an actor? Take notes. Firth could have easily overacted. Rush could have veered into hammy-ness, and Carter could have blended into the background- nothing more than wallpaper to the rest of the movie. But they all nailed it. Pitch-perfect acting. In fact, it was more than that. These actors weren't acting but living their roles, becoming their characters in ways that other actors (ahem- Nicholas Cage and Kevin Costner-ahem) have never come close to. Just fantastic, fantastic stuff.
So yeah, it had the performances- including Guy Pearce as particularly douche-y King Edward VIII (yeah almost forgot, but big ups to Pearce too) - but in some ways, the script was the real star. Great script. Excellent dialogue. The verbal sparring match between Logue and King George was awesome to watch and listen to. Really, the movie was awesome on a lot of levels. I think one of the biggest compliments I can pay it is that despite knowing how it was going to end- I mean I'm not ruining it to say that the newly crowned King was going to be able to deliver the key speech his country could rally around- I wasn't bored at all. In many ways this is similar- a historical drama with a light tone- to The Last Station- only even better. This isn't bad company to be hanging around. Oh and to be crystal clear this movie was no Big Momma's House 3- thankfully (though I suppose that's not fair; I've never seen any of the Big Momma's House movie- but I'll go out on a limb and assume that this is a hell of a lot better than all three of these movies combined). No, The King's Speech was everything I look for in a great movie. Definitely glad I saw it.
Grade: A+
Cutting right to the chase, I loved this movie. Great cinema. The fear going into a movie like this is that it could very well be very stuffy. After all, a lot of British movies are and even more British movies dealing with the Royal Family are. This one seemed as though it be able to avoid that trap but you can never be sure until you actually go see it. I guess the other pitfall would be that the movie would have folded under the weight of its own self-importance and expectations. It did seem right off the bat- from the moment I first heard of it- that it would be a good movie. It had the right pedigree: Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush, and Guy Pearce all in pretty substantial roles. The story at the outset seemed like a good one- certainly a triumphant one. Director Tom Hooper and company must have laid everything out on the table and known they had the potential to make a hell of a movie. The problem with all that is that sometimes the folks making these good movies get so wrapped up in showing how great they are- adding "subtleties" and fine details and the like- that they actually sink their movies. One example: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Only problem is the movie was so wrapped up in itself that it sucked.
Luckily, The King's Speech isn't stuffy or too bloated with self-importance or showiness. It's just a plain old great movie. No whistles or bells. Just great acting, great shooting, great scripting, and a fitting score to tie it all together. Great acting may, in fact, be an understatement. Colin Firth as King George VI (or for most of the movie, the future King George VI) is Colin Firth at his best. And that's really saying something. Firth was incredible in last year's A Single Man. He was also awesome in Love Actually and Pride and Prejudice (was that the A&E version or BBC?). He was also damn good in Bridget Jones' Diary. But he really outdid himself here. Ditto Geoffrey Rush- an actor I'm finding I really like. He just seems to get better and better with each movie I see him in... though again this- as speech therapist Lionel Logue- may be his peak. And yeah not to be too repetitive, but same goes for Helena Bonham Carter as King George VI's wife, Elizabeth. In short, each of these actors give a clinic on the art of acting. You want to be an actor? Take notes. Firth could have easily overacted. Rush could have veered into hammy-ness, and Carter could have blended into the background- nothing more than wallpaper to the rest of the movie. But they all nailed it. Pitch-perfect acting. In fact, it was more than that. These actors weren't acting but living their roles, becoming their characters in ways that other actors (ahem- Nicholas Cage and Kevin Costner-ahem) have never come close to. Just fantastic, fantastic stuff.
So yeah, it had the performances- including Guy Pearce as particularly douche-y King Edward VIII (yeah almost forgot, but big ups to Pearce too) - but in some ways, the script was the real star. Great script. Excellent dialogue. The verbal sparring match between Logue and King George was awesome to watch and listen to. Really, the movie was awesome on a lot of levels. I think one of the biggest compliments I can pay it is that despite knowing how it was going to end- I mean I'm not ruining it to say that the newly crowned King was going to be able to deliver the key speech his country could rally around- I wasn't bored at all. In many ways this is similar- a historical drama with a light tone- to The Last Station- only even better. This isn't bad company to be hanging around. Oh and to be crystal clear this movie was no Big Momma's House 3- thankfully (though I suppose that's not fair; I've never seen any of the Big Momma's House movie- but I'll go out on a limb and assume that this is a hell of a lot better than all three of these movies combined). No, The King's Speech was everything I look for in a great movie. Definitely glad I saw it.
Grade: A+
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Notes and Opinions 2011: 1.) Blog Legend
Ok, so here is an explanation in case any of you are new to the party. In 2007, 2009, 2010, and now 2011, my brother-in-law, a GM (I believe) in the AMC Theater company hooks me up with one of the 12 (I think) friends and family passes he has the right to give away. The pass is good at any AMC Theater (Kerasotes and Loews now too) in the country and I am able (plus one guest) to see any and as many movies I'd like for the year the pass is valid, for free. Yeah sweet deal. I love me some movies and I try to take advantage of this gift as often as possible. (The goal is ALWAYS 100... but I've only managed a record of 58- last year). So since I like movies and I have opinions about them I decided to write some reviews and post them on Facebook. I should say "reviews". These have been basically a stream of thoughts about the movies I've seen... did I like them, why/why not and a letter grade. Mostly write about plot stuff and performances. And I'm sure these things read as pretty juvenile. I occasionally tackle shooting style and script, but really it's just to detail why I did or didn't like a movie. Nothing fancy. Oh, also, I have no film study experience and I'm not generally looking at movies through that lens or through the lens of movies as artwork. My philosophy is this: a movie's number one priority- for me- is to entertain. The biggest sin a movie can commit is to be boring. A shitty movie from a technical aspect that is entertaining is probably better in my mind than an art piece that is duller than all get out. I don't go to movies for artistic study. So yeah, I see movies, and then I write about them. It usually takes between 30 mins to an hour to write these things. And that's at the most. And that's also because I'm prone to rambling. I don't generally pay attention to whether all the writing is technically and grammatically correct. And I try to write in a conversational style. You don't like it? Don't read it. Also, you may think I'm wrong or stupid or whatever. Fine, you can think that, but what I'm hoping to convey is that this is MY opinion on these flicks. I'm not wrong. Because this is just how I feel. Feel free to disagree. Feel free to comment about how you agree or disagree. I AM interested in other people's takes. What I'm not interested in is being told I'm an idiot because I like or didn't like a movie or I'm an idiot because of why I liked or didn't like a movie. I'm an idiot for a lot of reasons, but really this is just my opinion. Also, I don't want anyone to decide they don't want to see a movie based on what they see here. You really should judge a movie for itself. If you find yourself agreeing with my tastes then over time this may help you decide whether a movie jumps or slides in priority. But see it all the same. And let me know what you think. I'd be flattered if you care about what I write, but it's basically a meaningless hobby for me. Go see the movies you want to see and never feel badly about what you like or don't like. Just trust your gut feeling on it. So yeah there is all my disclaimer crap... the real reason for the disclaimers... I'm a little chicken shit who knows I don't know enough to hack it here on any valid level. But here I am all the same.
Now on to what the titles of the posts mean... because this is all new from my Facebook review years.
Movie List 2011: refers to movies I've seen in theaters and most likely using the pass. I know and have known others who have had the pass at the same time as me and it usually devolves into a contest to see who has seen more. I haven't lost yet. So this is an easy way to keep track of that.
New (to me) in 2011: movies I'm seeing for the first time this year on DVD or Netflix streaming. I'm not sure how many of these there will be.. last year I only saw something like 5 or 6 in the comfort of my or someone else's home.
Old Favorites: I'm also- in theory- going to try and re-watch some of my favorite movies. Here I'd tell you why I thought the movie was so damn awesome. These are definitely recommendations for what they are worth.
Notes and Opinions: This would be my take on stuff like the Oscars, favorite actors, industry stuff... I mean if I ever decide to write anything about any of that stuff. I generally like to think of who I would have win the Oscars if I were King of the Academy. That stuff may or may not appear here. Depending on how much I really want to put out there... because really... who cares what I think.. I do... and I may want to look back at it from time to time so maybe it is worth writing down.
So that's the admin stuff. I hope you aren't too frustrated with it... or hell bored... I mean if you are/were why bother reading it. Also please let me know what you like and/or a movie or two or three that you'd think I'd like based on what I'm writing. I love getting recs even if I end up disagreeing with them. It helps me get to know you and your tastes... never a bad thing. So yeah... Enjoy? I hope so.
Movie List 2011: 1.) The Tourist
The Tourist
This had to be...one of the dumbest movies I've seen in a long time. I'm not entirely sure what vibe the film makers were going for, but they ended up with something along the lines of an "Old Hollywood" parody mixed with a light action/romantic comedy flick. Or something like that. The tone itself didn't completely ruin the movie, it more served as an annoyance. The "elegant" shots seemed out of place and the film's score was just over-the-top with its whimsical airy peaks and valleys. Ugh. But again, that's not entirely what brought the movie down. The plot. That killed it for me. It just seemed ridiculous and wholly unbelievable. (As a quick reminder: movies- as they are entertainment- do NOT need to mimic reality. But they do have to adhere to some sense of reality for the realm (so to speak) or setting of the movie. For instance, in Jurassic Park, dinosaurs were normal. In real life... as far as I know.. dinosaurs don't exist... no stretch in the realm of the movie Jurassic Park to have dinosaurs. Now dinosaurs that breathed fire or shot laser beams out of their eyes, yeah, not in the realm of the movie and had Jurassic Park included that I'd be thinking that that was just plain unbelievable. You have to establish a baseline of reality for that plot and try not to stray too far. In the case of the Tourist, I think they went a little... to a lot... over the line). It is clear that the film makers- that'd be Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (holy shit, what a name) and crew- were aiming for a good old fashioned twisty turny fun action romantic adventure... cool, but the devil is in the execution of said twists and turns. Most of the plot turns just made my eyes roll. "Seriously?" was the common mental refrain. I know this isn't the most eloquent way of putting it, but again, the movie was just. plain. dumb. But at least it wasn't boring. That would have really sucked. It was an entertaining enough way to pass twoish hours. Just wish more thought would have been placed on subtler and more realistic twists.
But hey, at least the movie had star power! Hell yeah Paul Bettany! Iron Man's computer came to life and works for Scotland Yard. Big ups there. Actually Paul Bettany gave a pretty darn good effort here. Or at least his part was written in a way that allowed him to put in a good effort. Nice play on an obsessive, kind of slimey Scotland Yard Financial Crimes investigator. Nice work, Jarvis. Yeah, I know the real star power in the film is Timothy Dalton. Just kidding. I mean he's in it and all but not in a major role. Of course the buzz on this one (when it was being made and leading up to its release... the flick had a strange lack of buzz after release...maybe because it just wasn't that great) had to do with Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp. Ok, well, not the mind melting mix of talent some were hoping for. For me? Well, the only "Angelina Jolie" movie I had seen prior to this was Kung Fu Panda. She was pretty good in terms of voice talent. But she seems like she's pretty talented. So going in I was excited to being seeing my first true Jolie film. Leaving I was disappointed that they went with the Jolie-bot 2000 rather than the flesh and blood version of Angie. Or at least that's how her performance came off. Cold, mechanical, damn-near emotion-less. Is that what the von Donnersmarck was shooting for? She can act right? Right? Why this then? I can only imagine this is what the director was gunning for. I'd call it a misstep.
So that leaves Depp. Big Depp fan over here. Loved him in a bunch of his movies: Finding Neverland, Edward Scissorhands, Chocolat, Public Enemies, the first Pirates, Blow, Fear and Loathing, Donnie Brasco, and so forth. (Of course I hated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). So this was a pretty big disappointment again. I don't really blame him. He didn't seem to be going through the motions or anything. He seemed invested in the movie and it was a pretty good performance... of a kind of cruddy script. His character was annoying. His accent was annoying (at first I thought- what the hell is Johnny doing- is he going to bring shades of Captain Jack into every role now... by the end of the movie it makes sense... I mean what he was going for... why he was going for it too... by why he had to go for it... that was dumb). His performance was game. What else can you say. He has a certain big star appeal and a whole shitload of charm. It's really hard not to like his performances. But every once and again something like the Tourist or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or Alice in Wonderland or Pirates sequels (yes, I'm planning on seeing Pirates 4... no I don't think it'll be very good... yes I think Johnny Depp is doing backstrokes in his money-filled pool on his private island) pops up just to remind me of how awesome Depp is in awesome movies. I'm sure he can single handedly carry a movie, but not this one. Sadly.
In the end, I think it would have been better as a somewhat bizzaro version of Roman Holiday with Gregory Peck as Frank and Audrey Hepburn as Elise. And.. why not... Eddie Albert as Bettany's Inspector Acheson... annnnnnd hmmmm Mickey Rooney as Dalton's Chief Inspector Jones. Dead. Lock. Hit. But it never happened. What did happen was a less-than-great flick... that at its best was "not so boring"... yeah, not so good.
Grade: C
This had to be...one of the dumbest movies I've seen in a long time. I'm not entirely sure what vibe the film makers were going for, but they ended up with something along the lines of an "Old Hollywood" parody mixed with a light action/romantic comedy flick. Or something like that. The tone itself didn't completely ruin the movie, it more served as an annoyance. The "elegant" shots seemed out of place and the film's score was just over-the-top with its whimsical airy peaks and valleys. Ugh. But again, that's not entirely what brought the movie down. The plot. That killed it for me. It just seemed ridiculous and wholly unbelievable. (As a quick reminder: movies- as they are entertainment- do NOT need to mimic reality. But they do have to adhere to some sense of reality for the realm (so to speak) or setting of the movie. For instance, in Jurassic Park, dinosaurs were normal. In real life... as far as I know.. dinosaurs don't exist... no stretch in the realm of the movie Jurassic Park to have dinosaurs. Now dinosaurs that breathed fire or shot laser beams out of their eyes, yeah, not in the realm of the movie and had Jurassic Park included that I'd be thinking that that was just plain unbelievable. You have to establish a baseline of reality for that plot and try not to stray too far. In the case of the Tourist, I think they went a little... to a lot... over the line). It is clear that the film makers- that'd be Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (holy shit, what a name) and crew- were aiming for a good old fashioned twisty turny fun action romantic adventure... cool, but the devil is in the execution of said twists and turns. Most of the plot turns just made my eyes roll. "Seriously?" was the common mental refrain. I know this isn't the most eloquent way of putting it, but again, the movie was just. plain. dumb. But at least it wasn't boring. That would have really sucked. It was an entertaining enough way to pass twoish hours. Just wish more thought would have been placed on subtler and more realistic twists.
But hey, at least the movie had star power! Hell yeah Paul Bettany! Iron Man's computer came to life and works for Scotland Yard. Big ups there. Actually Paul Bettany gave a pretty darn good effort here. Or at least his part was written in a way that allowed him to put in a good effort. Nice play on an obsessive, kind of slimey Scotland Yard Financial Crimes investigator. Nice work, Jarvis. Yeah, I know the real star power in the film is Timothy Dalton. Just kidding. I mean he's in it and all but not in a major role. Of course the buzz on this one (when it was being made and leading up to its release... the flick had a strange lack of buzz after release...maybe because it just wasn't that great) had to do with Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp. Ok, well, not the mind melting mix of talent some were hoping for. For me? Well, the only "Angelina Jolie" movie I had seen prior to this was Kung Fu Panda. She was pretty good in terms of voice talent. But she seems like she's pretty talented. So going in I was excited to being seeing my first true Jolie film. Leaving I was disappointed that they went with the Jolie-bot 2000 rather than the flesh and blood version of Angie. Or at least that's how her performance came off. Cold, mechanical, damn-near emotion-less. Is that what the von Donnersmarck was shooting for? She can act right? Right? Why this then? I can only imagine this is what the director was gunning for. I'd call it a misstep.
So that leaves Depp. Big Depp fan over here. Loved him in a bunch of his movies: Finding Neverland, Edward Scissorhands, Chocolat, Public Enemies, the first Pirates, Blow, Fear and Loathing, Donnie Brasco, and so forth. (Of course I hated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). So this was a pretty big disappointment again. I don't really blame him. He didn't seem to be going through the motions or anything. He seemed invested in the movie and it was a pretty good performance... of a kind of cruddy script. His character was annoying. His accent was annoying (at first I thought- what the hell is Johnny doing- is he going to bring shades of Captain Jack into every role now... by the end of the movie it makes sense... I mean what he was going for... why he was going for it too... by why he had to go for it... that was dumb). His performance was game. What else can you say. He has a certain big star appeal and a whole shitload of charm. It's really hard not to like his performances. But every once and again something like the Tourist or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or Alice in Wonderland or Pirates sequels (yes, I'm planning on seeing Pirates 4... no I don't think it'll be very good... yes I think Johnny Depp is doing backstrokes in his money-filled pool on his private island) pops up just to remind me of how awesome Depp is in awesome movies. I'm sure he can single handedly carry a movie, but not this one. Sadly.
In the end, I think it would have been better as a somewhat bizzaro version of Roman Holiday with Gregory Peck as Frank and Audrey Hepburn as Elise. And.. why not... Eddie Albert as Bettany's Inspector Acheson... annnnnnd hmmmm Mickey Rooney as Dalton's Chief Inspector Jones. Dead. Lock. Hit. But it never happened. What did happen was a less-than-great flick... that at its best was "not so boring"... yeah, not so good.
Grade: C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)